Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9077 total)
62 online now:
(62 visitors)
Newest Member: Contrarian
Post Volume: Total: 894,001 Year: 5,113/6,534 Month: 533/794 Week: 24/135 Day: 1/23 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   An Agnosto-Atheist Evolutionary Theorist Firmly AGAINST "Darwin Day"
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5089 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 1 of 13 (86200)
02-13-2004 11:00 PM


There is a recent REUTERS ARTICLE about a movement to make Feb 12, Darwin Day.

Now I found the rampant creationist movements across the western world mentioned in that article (particularly in the US and Britain) frightening. But I do not believe the answer is a Darwin Day, particularly the way these groups are going about it.

To start with, from a science perspective, the article mentions it is a group of atheists and humanists driving this campaign. DARWIN AND EVOLUTION HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH ATHEISM AND HUMANISM! This movement is actually counterproductive by linking moral and religious belief to a purely scientific endeavor. It will further alienate theists, as well as helping them maintain the many myths about what Darwinism or Evolutionary Theory are.

Secondly, as an American, I find this ridiculous. As much as I might admire Darwin, what on earth does he have to do with something in the US? I could understand if you wanted to celebrate Einstein (since he came to live here), or better yet Enrico Fermi (he split the atom damnit!), heck I'd even be up for giving that surfboarding scientist who invented PCR a day for himself. At least these people have something to do with the US and science.

I think it would be great too, in that not being associated with controversial subjects, it might excite people to get into science... and from there learn the truth about science.

Actually, why not George Washington Carver or Edison? These men were also scientists in their own way. Science and enterprise!

Well that's my rant. Do others feel it is a good idea to push for a Darwin Day? Would it change public attitude toward science in general or evolution in specific?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by truthlover, posted 02-14-2004 12:06 AM Silent H has replied
 Message 3 by DBlevins, posted 02-14-2004 1:22 AM Silent H has replied

  
truthlover
Member (Idle past 3328 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 2 of 13 (86206)
02-14-2004 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
02-13-2004 11:00 PM


I'd be mixed on the Darwin day. I can't say that a scientist who has influenced all of us so much shouldn't get a day, even if he wasn't American, but I don't think we need one more day. It would just be one more day off for bankers.

And I loved Kary Mullis' book, but I couldn't recommend a day for him, either. It did remind me of a thread I wanted to start, though, so...off to start it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 02-13-2004 11:00 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Silent H, posted 02-14-2004 12:00 PM truthlover has taken no action

  
DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3045 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 3 of 13 (86212)
02-14-2004 1:22 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Silent H
02-13-2004 11:00 PM


I like the idea of a Darwin Day myself but only as a celebration of "science" than one of a single scientist. There are celebrations for all sorts of occasions, why not one for the adventure and wonder of scientific discovery. I wouldn't care if a day was called Fermi Day or Einstein day, myself. A day that looks at the wonder of the world and marvels at how far we've come and the distance ahead of us should be something to celebrate.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Silent H, posted 02-13-2004 11:00 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by Silent H, posted 02-14-2004 11:46 AM DBlevins has taken no action

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5089 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 4 of 13 (86267)
02-14-2004 11:46 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by DBlevins
02-14-2004 1:22 AM


I agree with your take on it. Certainly if we can have Protection from Porn Week, we should be able to get an Appreciate the Wonders of Science Day, or Week?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by DBlevins, posted 02-14-2004 1:22 AM DBlevins has taken no action

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5089 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 5 of 13 (86270)
02-14-2004 12:00 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by truthlover
02-14-2004 12:06 AM


The reason I concentrated in the American angle is that that's normally how we create holidays regarding individuals. So this is taking an extra step beyond the norm in order to get it introduced.

I think we have plenty of people that have influenced science just as much if not more that have lived in the US. Darwin was important, but except for creationist making him seem much more important than he was his theory was not as ground breaking as many others to science in general.

I think the Scottish scientist (I forget his name at the moment) who came up with the idea of an Old Earth, and uniformitarianism was more important overall (heck he influenced Darwin), as well as Einstein, Galileo, Newton, or Fermi.

Darwin changed one singular paradigm, these other guys totally changed the way we live and perceive the world. If not for the resistance to evolutionary theory, I would consider it about the same level of discovery of the ideal gas law, or perhaps more closely the discovery of the hard small nucleus of the atom.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by truthlover, posted 02-14-2004 12:06 AM truthlover has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2004 12:28 PM Silent H has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 6 of 13 (86272)
02-14-2004 12:28 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Silent H
02-14-2004 12:00 PM


I think the Scottish scientist (I forget his name at the moment) who came up with the idea of an Old Earth, and uniformitarianism was more important overall

Is it Charles Lyell?

I prefer Catastrophism.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Silent H, posted 02-14-2004 12:00 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Silent H, posted 02-14-2004 12:53 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5089 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 7 of 13 (86280)
02-14-2004 12:53 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by mike the wiz
02-14-2004 12:28 PM


quote:
I prefer Catastrophism

Actually that is making somewhat of a comeback as people realize some large features can be formed pretty damn quick.

Not grand canyon size (specifically the layering of sediments), but certainly some fault and volcanic features.

By the way I realize I forgot to give you some credit in another thread. I was talking about Xian posters that I like and I forgot to mention you. And you just tossed me a doozy with Lyell.

I was actually thinking of James Hutton. Both scottish geologists, Hutton preceded (and influenced) Lyell, but Lyell did get a bit more of the credit for producing evidence for the theory, and I guess he did influence Darwin more directly.

However it seems to me that Lyell was the one that did a bit of damage by overemphasizing gradual change, or deemphasizing OBVIOUS catastrophic possibilities.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2004 12:28 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2004 1:07 PM Silent H has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 8 of 13 (86281)
02-14-2004 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Silent H
02-14-2004 12:53 PM


By the way I realize I forgot to give you some credit in another thread. I was talking about Xian posters that I like and I forgot to mention you. And you just tossed me a doozy with Lyell.

Hehe, it's OK, I haven't found that thread, which one is it?

I was actually thinking of James Hutton. Both scottish geologists, Hutton preceded (and influenced) Lyell, but Lyell did get a bit more of the credit for producing evidence for the theory, and I guess he did influence Darwin more directly.

Yes, Lyell is the one I've heard things about, for the reasons you said - gradual change etc. I think if my memory serves me correctly that the previous great debate was between Catastrophism and Uniformatarianism, I think the latter was the newer theory. I've heard as you say, that they could both be viable nowadays.

What's a doozy?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Silent H, posted 02-14-2004 12:53 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 02-14-2004 1:26 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5089 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 9 of 13 (86284)
02-14-2004 1:26 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by mike the wiz
02-14-2004 1:07 PM


quote:
Hehe, it's OK, I haven't found that thread, which one is it?

I don't remember. It's one of the threads that Buz started to knock atheism or Islam, and as part of his refutation of my argument, claimed I was christophobic.

For some reason I actually answered that lame argument, with an equally idiotic counterargument of listing Xians I respected including one I like as a poster at EvC.

quote:
I've heard as you say, that they could both be viable nowadays.

I think the big problem is that Uniformitarianism was pushed beyond its essential points, into mandating gradualism and perhaps discounting other phenomenon we have yet to see (or document in science).

Uniformitarianism is a blank statement that the processes we see today can be thought to be true in the past. Thus when we look at features we can first approach them with processes that we understand.

I guess in Scotland they don't have any volcanos or earthquakes, but they must have at least heard of them. I am uncertain how catastrophes were ever removed as a cause of geologic structures under Uniformitarianism.

Thus I guess I don't see it as both being viable (though that is how it is being posed by creationist camps), but rather there is a realization that gradualism and catastrophism both fit under that same blanket theory equally well. The question is which process works for which geologic feature. That is not such a coin toss.

quote:
What's a doozy?

An outmoded, or perhaps wholly fictitious word, that indicates it is something that is not easily dealt with. More complex than simple statement of facts. In this case you busted up my though process because I then realized I don't know which scottish scientist ought to get a day of his own (even if I was thinking of Hutton).


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2004 1:07 PM mike the wiz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by mike the wiz, posted 02-14-2004 1:42 PM Silent H has taken no action
 Message 11 by Brian, posted 02-14-2004 1:49 PM Silent H has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4721
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 10 of 13 (86288)
02-14-2004 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Silent H
02-14-2004 1:26 PM


In this case you busted up my though process because I then realized I don't know which scottish scientist ought to get a day of his own (even if I was thinking of Hutton).

Oh....sorry I didn't mean to bust your chops over this, Lol, you probably do have a good point about Darwin day because as you say he wasn't American, besides - he's already on my ten pound notes!

I guess in Scotland they don't have any volcanos or earthquakes, but they must have at least heard of them.

Well, the UK is hardly a hotspot for such activity, infact I've never even felt a quiver from an earthquake in tea and biscuits Britain.

Uniformitarianism is a blank statement that the processes we see today can be thought to be true in the past.

Yes. Present is the key to the past etc.. Though I don't personally agree with that way of thinking there might well be truth to it, though I have issues with "past tense" things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 02-14-2004 1:26 PM Silent H has taken no action

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 11 of 13 (86290)
02-14-2004 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Silent H
02-14-2004 1:26 PM


Hi,

I guess in Scotland they don't have any volcanos or earthquakes, but they must have at least heard of them. I am uncertain how catastrophes were ever removed as a cause of geologic structures under Uniformitarianism.

We get very minor earthquake tremors in Scotland, but not very many of them. Earthquakes

Edinburgh Castle is also built on a 300 million year old extinct volcano! But we havent got any active ones.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Silent H, posted 02-14-2004 1:26 PM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 02-14-2004 4:03 PM Brian has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5089 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 12 of 13 (86306)
02-14-2004 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by Brian
02-14-2004 1:49 PM


quote:
Edinburgh Castle is also built on a 300 million year old extinct volcano!

Are you sure its not 6000 years old? And how did it go extinct? Hunters probably, right? Or maybe not enough virgins to eat?

Seriously though, did Hutton and Lyell know about this volcano? And if so how come gradualism was pushed so heavily by Lyell?


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by Brian, posted 02-14-2004 1:49 PM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by Brian, posted 02-15-2004 5:49 PM Silent H has taken no action

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 13 of 13 (86481)
02-15-2004 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Silent H
02-14-2004 4:03 PM


Hi Holmes,

Seriously though, did Hutton and Lyell know about this volcano? And if so how come gradualism was pushed so heavily by Lyell?

I have no idea about Hutton, Lyell or anything else to do with science.

Although I love reading the science topics here, I really have very little knowledge of any of the scientific theories that get discussed here. So rather than do a Bluffers Guide to YECism jive, I tend to leave the science to the scientists.

Sorry I couldn't help.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Silent H, posted 02-14-2004 4:03 PM Silent H has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022